Mulwayini Mundau Wilson Zvomuya Introduction
The socio-economic challenges faced by developing countries are forcing them to embrace social development as an alternative approach to achieving development. The classical theories of development like the Linear Stages Theory, Structural Changes Model, the International Dependence Models and the Neo-Classical Counter-revolution approaches among others have been seriously affected by a number of impediments that are economic, political, social and even technological in nature, making it difficult for them to realise set targets and goals. It is in this context that social workers are obliged to come up with developmental approaches towards assisting individuals, groups and communities to solve their own problems, capacitating them to enhance their social functioning and to cope more effectively with their problems (Pamar, 2014). However, in reality, this appears not to be the case due to remedial approaches in social welfare services provision and the so-called development activities being implemented among the vulnerable populations in Zimbabwe. Social work education and practice in the country is still dominated by western hegemony and far much detached from the realities of the African people. The western hegemony of social work practice pre-occupies social workers with providing piece-meal services due to the dire need for survival and severe poverty issues.
It is critical to advocate for a paradigm shift towards a developmental approach to social work by indigenising it to suit the needs of the local
people and address the impediments that hinder the transitioning process.
This chapter focuses on the exploration of impediments that militate against the indigenisation of social work in Zimbabwe and possible mitigation measures. Areas covered in this section include definitions for social development, developmental social work and social work indigenisation, barriers to social work indigenisation and possible mitigations as well as proposed models to inform the indigenisation process. The authors believe that indigenisation of social work using a developmental approach is critical in the attainment of social development in the country.
Historical Overview of Social Work Education and Practice in Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe gained independence from Britain in 1980, after being colonised from around the 1890s. The colonial period witnessed a massive impartation of the colonial hegemonic tendencies and beliefs in many frontiers. The general nature of doing business was Eurocentric, with little or no reflection of the African contextual imperatives. Colonial masters dictated the order of the day in virtually every aspect of human existence.
The contributions of the indigenous people to philosophy, practice and the production of knowledge were denied an opportunity for recognition. The education of the day was purely ‘foreign’, aimed at making the indigenous people governable and subservient to their colonial masters and largely lacked significance to their existential and contextual situation (Austin, 1975; Mlambo, 1998).
In the same vein, the practice and training of social work in Zimbabwe is a product of colonialism which necessitated a direct transfer of Western methods of social work practice to Zimbabwe and Africa at large. The attainment of independence in 1980 did not usher in a reprieve from the tradition; instead, it brought in the perpetuation of the colonial hegemonic tendencies in social work training and practice. The social work curriculum in postcolonial Zimbabwe is an embodiment of the colonial legacy in social work education and practice. The nature of practice is mainly rehabilitative and curative. Kreitzer (2012:) poses a question,
“Why is it that 90 percent of books in the social work library in Africa are western?” This question speaks volumes of concurrence with Midgley’s
(1981) book titled “Professional Imperialism: Social Work in the Third World”. Kreitzer further alludes that western social work literature forces students to adapt western knowledge to their own situations when they should be having their own. In Zimbabwe, Eurocentric knowledge on social work theories, methods and values continue to be the epicentre of social work education, while indigenous methods and approaches remain on the periphery of formal education and practice.
On another note, the issue of the internationalisation of social work comes at the fore. Concerning this issue, Midgley (2001) alludes that, social workers are divided on the question of the universality of social work values and whether internationalism is a desirable normative position for the profession to adopt or not, as it seeks to respond to the forces of globalisation. It is of importance to note that, this does not only affect Zimbabwe, as Hogarth (2019) refers to the Canadian conundrum of balancing decolonisation of social work and also meeting international expectations. It is therefore imperative to take note of the need to strike a balance between the contextualisation of social work and the need to meet the global demands. The Zimbabwean context of social work practice presents itself with a lot of opportunities and challenges for indigenisation and at the same time meeting the internationalisation of the profession.
Social Work Indigenisation as a Conceptual Framework
One of the defenders of social work indigenisation, Osei-Hwedie (1993), argues that indigenisation is based upon the realisation that social work in Africa has failed to respond appropriately to the major problems confronting the region. According to Osei-Hwedie (2001), indigenisation refers to postulations which state that the theories, values and philosophies of social work practice must be influenced by local factors such as culture, beliefs, cosmology and social milieu. In addition to this view, Gray et al. (2013) opine that indigenisation holds that social work knowledge should arise from within the culture, reflect local behaviours and practices, be interpreted within a local frame of reference, and thus be so locally relevant, that is, it should address culturally relevant and context-specific problems.
The genesis of the indigenisation of social work agenda can be traced from the efforts of the Association for Social Work Education in Africa (ASWEA), a non-profit association that was formed in 1971 in the wake of a growing number of African nations gaining independence from their former colonial powers (Grey et al., 2014). The association was guided by a decolonising agenda, as African social work education was seeking alternatives to dominant, rehabilitative and curative Western approaches to service delivery and social work training. From this view, the quest to ensure that social work education in Africa should consider local and regional issues and make the profession relevant to African settings has never ceased. According to Ugiagbe (2015:792), “Practices of social work vary in different times in history and various regions, localities and communities since the form and shape that social work takes are shaped by the social cultural contexts of a particular region or locality”. Social work practice and principles should, therefore, fit local contexts. On another note, it is imperative to note that there have been a lot of barriers militating again the realisation of indigenous social work in Africa. As shall be dealt with in this chapter, these factors range from the socio- political context, poor social work regulatory frameworks, poverty, economic decay and the associated effects of brain drain.
The metamorphosis and formalisation of the social work profession from the former colonial powers is a fact. According to Carbone and Kazepov (2007), the first social interventions go back to the Victorian Age and many systems of social organisations which were developed in Europe to respond to problems were created by industrialisation. This, therefore, implies that, despite the need to indigenise, one cannot wish away the need and relevance of social work as an international profession with its origins from the western world.
The inherent nature of social work has given room to the relevance of international social work associations championing the regulation of social work training and practice internationally. In July 2014, the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) and the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) came up with a new global definition of social work and then published the updated Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles in 2019 and the Global Standards for Social Work
Education and Training document in 2020 in a bid to reflect on recent developments in global social work. It is prudent to note that, in their quest to promote social work globally, the IFSW and IASSW are cognisant of historical diversity, socio-cultural, economic and political contexts in which social work is practiced, both within countries and across the globe (IFSW & IASSW, 2020).
Social work is a profession practiced across many nations. Dominelli (2012), points to the increasing number of social workers who are training in one country and working in another, raising various questions about the transferability of social work training, its relevance as it crosses borders, and contexts to be applied in very different cultural milieus.
This, therefore, calls for a well-balanced approach to the indigenisation agenda. It is inarguable that the Westernisation of social policies and social work methods of practice is a reinforcement of the hierarchical power relations and the imbalanced forms of collaboration among different countries and groups (Gray & Fook, 2004). Furthermore, this will marginalise and undermine the relevancy of a localised interpretation of world view, culture and belief systems. In support of the balanced approach, Gray and Fook (2004) argue that recognising the challenge to draw the best from international influences while developing local models of social work education and practice have led to suggest social development as an alternative, as the case of South Africa shows.
The Social Development Approach
The concept of “social development” has been faced with many contestations as far as its definition is concerned. Professionals and academics from various fields have applied and defined the concept in different ways. Midgley (2014) concurs with this view by admitting that, even though the term social development has been in regular use for more than half a century, it is still poorly defined and is being used to mean different things in different circumstances. According to Nahar (2014), these definitions are evolving and ever changing and they tend to be time, culture, and place specific.
In a bid to present a comprehensive definition of what social development is, Pawar (2014) categorised many definitions of social development into
three categories based on their approach. These include definitions that focus on systematic planning, thinking and economic development;
definitions that focus on structural change; and definitions that focus on realising the human potential, needs, and quality of life. Midgley’s (1995) definition of social development as a process of planned social change which was designed to promote the well-being of the population as a whole in conjunction with a dynamic process of economic development falls under the category of definitions that view social development as a systematic planning, thinking and economic development. Pathak’s (1987) definition of social development as a comprehensive concept which implies major structural political, economic, and cultural changes which are introduced as part of deliberate action to transform society, falls under the category of definitions that focus on structural change. Lastly, definitions that focus on realising the human potential, needs, and quality of life are in line with Pandey’s (1981) view that social development includes improvement in the quality of life of people; equitable distribution of resource; broad-based participation in the process of decision marking and special measures that will enable marginal groups and communities to move into the mainstream
As alluded to earlier, the genesis of the term social development can be traced from the dissatisfaction with the development models that put more emphasis on economic growth, neglecting social factors. In tandem with this view, Gore (1973) characterises the concept of social development as being inclusive of economic development but differs in the sense that he emphasises societal development at all levels of economic, political, social, and cultural aspects. In a bid to present a comprehensive picture of what social development entails, the theory of social development is a product of a mixture of interrelated and independent theories. According to Midgley and Pawar (2017), there are several discipline-based theories, which may be considered broadly as development theories, and that apply to understanding some aspects of social development progress, or lack of it, and/or distorted development in different countries and regions.
The specific goals of social development are quite diverse. As observed from a practical and theoretical perspective, the goals of social development have been observed to include the eradication of poverty and
hunger, improvement of education and literacy, reduction in infant and maternal mortality, ending of gender discrimination and oppression, enhanced participation in the political process, increased access to improved sanitation, and many more (Midgley, 2014).
In terms of the approach’s natural characteristics, social development entails a variety of characteristics as viewed by many scholars. However, Midgley (1995 and 2014), presents eight characteristic features of social development. These entail that;
a) Social development is a process. The process is defined as having three aspects: first, a pre-existing social condition that social development seeks to change; second, the process of change itself; and finally, the end state in which social development goals are accomplished.
b) The process of change in social development is progressive in nature.
c) The social development process forms part of a larger multifaceted process comprised of economic, social, political, environmental, gender, and other dimensions which are integrated and harmonised.
d) The social development process is interventionist in that it requires human agency in the form of projects, programmes, policies, and plans that achieve social development goals.
e) The social development process is productivist in that practice interventions function as investments that contribute positively to economic development.
f) Social development is universalistic in scope; it is concerned with the population as a whole rather than with impoverished, vulnerable, and needy groups of people. It encourages a wider universalistic context of interventions that promote the welfare of all.
g) Social development adheres to the principle of universalism is another characteristic feature of social development. The principle requires that the barriers that prevent social inclusion be addressed and that egalitarian and redistributive policy be adopted.
h) Social development is aimed at promoting social welfare. It is committed to the goal of promoting people’s social well-being.
According to Midgley and Pawar (2017), since the term ‘social development’ emerged for the first time in the 1950s, poverty and
deprivation have not been met but the needs of the hundreds of millions of families have been satisfied. The failure by traditional approaches to development to embrace the need for social improvement, which would translate to economic growth, was an opportunity for the popularity of the social development approach. Economists believe that economic improvements will trickle down to promote social development. However, the realities in most developing countries are proving the opposite. Most of them have been associated with rampant corruption, whereas the minority exploit national resources to their advantage. Social development, therefore, comes in as an alternative approach.
What is Developmental Social Work?
Developmental social work is one of the end results that indigenised social work systems. According to Midgley and Conley (2010), developmental social work is the application of the theory, principles and values of social development to social work and is an approach to social work that is informed by social development. This is all aimed at enhancing the well- being of individuals, families, groups and communities in their social context (Patel, 2005). It entails a commitment to “social investment” and
“economic development”. Developmental social work is different from generic social work in that it focuses much on the macro-policy framework interventions unlike the micro and meso interventions which place emphasis on the individuals and families. It is achieved when social workers tailor-make social development skills and knowledge in solving problems presented by their clients. Zimbabwe as a developing country with a high level of poverty and deprivation will need different approaches to intervention. Midgley (2001) notes that the question of social work’s proper role in the developing countries of the global South remains pertinent. This is mainly centred on whether the profession should be primarily committed to remedial, activist or developmental forms of practice.
Social workers need to understand that their clients already have their own inherent capacity, resources and solutions to their problems. The role of social workers is then to capacitate, empower and strengthen their potential to use available systems and resources in solving presented problems. They also need to bear in mind that the moment clients
approach social workers, other avenues for assistance would have been exhausted. In that scenario, the process also entails making correct connections or referrals that steer the discovery of innovative skills and sources of assistance that promote self-sufficiency.
Principles of Developmental Social Work
The contextualisation and localisation of developmental social work in Zimbabwe should be guided by principles and values that speak to the African context. The roots of such principles are embedded in the spirit of collectivism, conservatism, humaneness and non-paternalism. It is imperative to state that some of the following principles are tailor-made from the South African principles for developmental service delivery, the Batho Pele with others being rooted in the Ubuntu/ Unhu philosophy from a Zimbabwean perspective. As such, the following principles may suit the local Zimbabwean context:
a) Respect for Ubuntu: A philosophy of oneness; an understanding of the connectedness of all humans.
b) Empowerment: People should achieve greater control and influence over the resources that have a bearing on their quality of life.
c) Equity: Distribution of resources should be based upon the need and also in consideration of the traditional past imbalances.
d) Universal access: Development should be available to all that are in need and not be a preserve for the strategically positioned few.
e) Climate Change Awareness: People should have an understanding of climate change related trends for easy adaptation.
f) Sustainability: Constant and long-term maintenance of people’s goals should be realised.
g) Participation: People should be fully engaged in the process of development and be allowed to progress at their own pace.
h) Social integration: Policies and programmes should be harmonised in order to promote social justice.
i) Dependency-free: People should be self-sustainable or independent at personal, family, societal and national levels.
j) Efficiency and effectiveness: Development should be achieved in the most cost- effective manner.
The Nexus Between Social Work Indigenisation and Developmental Social Work
Calls for indigenisation of social work are increasing and closely tied with the desire by developing nations to realise developmental approaches towards the amelioration of the rampant socio-economic challenges. A symbiotic relationship between social work indigenisation and developmental social work is clear for everyone to see. There are already existing traditional and cultural structures and systems in place through which Africans realise social development. These structures and systems can be exploited to attain developmental social work in Zimbabwe. This is in line with Gray’s (2010) view that social work places a great deal of emphasis on responsiveness to local contexts and problems. The indigeneity of social work is premised on the adoption of context specific and culturally sensitive approaches in dealing with social problems. In this respect, social development views the centrality of cultural and contextual appropriateness in any social work intervention as sacrosanct.
There is a close link that exists between indigenisation of social work in Zimbabwe and the attainment of developmental social work. The use of locally available systems and traditional mitigation measures on poverty alleviation among communities’ anchor's efforts to address their social and economic challenges. Therefore, social workers in training and practice need to acknowledge a niche that exists for them to indigenise social work for the attainment of social development.
Barriers to Social Work Indigenisation
The indigenisation of social work in Zimbabwe is a good idea that needs proper care in its implementation. As noted earlier, the practice and training of social work in Zimbabwe purely rests within a colonial frame.
Hogarth (2019) argues that, if issues to do with decoloniality are not well attended to, social work as a profession will continue to play a pivotal role in enacting and re-enacting colonialism. In a bid to foster a disentanglement strategy, the writers explore the possible structural barriers that are likely to scatter the prospects of successful indigenisation. There are a number of structural factors that could impede the implementation of this necessary process. This section gives focus to the potential barriers and later on proffers possible mitigations to these challenges.